Daisies

The Emporer's New Clothes.

 

I can't help feeling a lot of people are rating this highly because other's are rating it highly. Don't get me wrong. I respect a lot of the raters that are rating this so highly but I really don't get it.

 

It is true (as the photographer acknowledges) that not everyone likes every photo. Personally speaking this photo is not my 'cup of tea.' (I would acknowledge that doesn't make it bad.) Having said that, I often give high ratings to photographs that I do not like, if I admire them or respect them.

 

I have looked at Bob's other photos and he has some very pleasing shots on photo.net.

 

Maybe I am missing something here. I will keep looking at this photo to see if anything leaps out at me. However, so far nothing has leapt out at me!

 

I get the feeling that people are saying this photo is good because they are being told it is good. Is the Emporer wearing any clothes?

 

Does anyone else have this feeling?

This silly little thing makes for a nice image and I'm sure it's also a nice print that would sell quite well. Not that commercial success is necessarily reflective of artistic quality, but it's got to count for something. Transfers are interesting to me because they are twists to the photographic reality through which we so often expect to see the world. Essentially, Bob's transfers force us to view common still-life objects in a slightly different way, largely reading for texture and value more than color. Partly as a result, in some images in the folder, subtle color changes are able to be much more noticeable and effective.

 

Just my opinion, but Bob seems to have a good eye for composition and sound technique. As with other folks, there are images in the folder that I probably like better than this one - the Marsh Family Portrait plays well on the watercolor textures; the subdued light in Tulip enables subtle values to get full play - what I find is that I like them when I see a few at a time. When I see the whole folder, it starts to feel like too much of the same thing. This is partly just a personal reaction to too much still life, and partly a reaction, I think, to the similarity of tones generated by this process.

 

A lot's been made of the border. I guess I don't mind it because I do see it as a product of the process, and because I personally don't feel distracted by it. I don't think it's necessary for the image to succeed, but either way I can't get all that worked up over it. I prefer Bob's crop to Anna's, but either way much of the image's interest is conveyed (to those who are interested, of course; if the image holds no interest I doubt the crop makes much difference).

 

Slightly off-topic, but: we're all adults here, and there's no need to pull punches, really, but I still get a kick out of people's tendency to write their opinions in such a way that they come across as insults.

 

Enjoy.

I like the image and like the polaroid transfer border, too. I don't find it gimmicky at all. Good polaroid transfer images on art paper have a pleasing "organic" look to them, not gimmicky. I plan to try my hand at them once I buy a polaroid back. (Digitally adding polaroid transfer-like borders to a non-polaroid transfer image -- now that *is* a little cheesy, I agree.)

I think it looks great. Not a big fan of borders and this one is no exception. However, This is a nice looking background, very simplistic, good lighting, good Composition, I see nothing wrong with this except the border. A deserving POW. Congratulations, Bob. :)

Is this photo a case of The Emperor's New Clothes? Are the bulk of us expressing our appreciation merely submissive sheep seeking approval from someone or something? In a word: No.

I think Bob's photo (and most POW's) show how broad the visual vocabulary and tastes of this community are. Not everyone will like every photo. No two people will see it the same way. It is very interesting to see the different viewpoints.

Personally I like the photo a lot. To me it has an almost zen garden like elegance about it. To others it may be boring and I sound like a pretentious art twit. Which one is true? It's all a point of view.

Cheers,

PS: David ignore everything I wrote above.. just between you and me the Aliens have landed and the POW is really a group mind control experiment.

I once was very active taking SX-70 photos. Many a people who expressed their "distaste" for this kind of photography later had to eat their words after looking at my collection. Polaroid photography has taught me, that for every "style" of Photography there is a particular camera which can do the job best. Though your flower shot does make me think: "Why would one want to take such a 'simple' image on film?-"

The more I see of unusual Polaroid work, the more I desire the SX-70...

 

I am seriously falling in love with unusual photography!

 

Is there anything distinctive that I should know about, should I wish to pursue the acquisition of one in the next few years?

 

Does it use regular Polaroid film? Can I vary shutter speeds and apertures? Is it a pain in the neck to transport, or easily prone to breakage?

 

If someone could answer this kind of stuff in a private email to me or even a quick answer on here, I'd appreciate it.

 

I think someone a few posts above me took my post about the "story" too seriously. I only meant it as my interpretation. :)

I find flower shots very boring. But, I can't help but like this. It's so well done. The original print must look fantastic

Sorry I'm late. Just got back from NYC where I saw a LOT of

photographs. What impressed me was the variety . . . from museums to

vendors outside. I can imagine Bob's work either inside or outside

some of these venues which is to say that I can imagine what a

physical print looks like even though I can only view his work on my

monitor. So many photo.net images don't appear to be viewable as real

prints and seem to be produced primarily, if not solely, for monitor

viewing. Sometimes it's hard to tell . . . but sometimes it's

painfully obvious.

 

It's also hard to critique an image where you have no experience with

the process and where the subject matter is pretty far removed from

your own style. I find that some images are enjoyable simply for what

they offer in terms of light, color, composition, etc. As with all

photos, there are many things this photo isn't, so I guess I'll enjoy

it for what it is.

 

Congratulations, Bob.

I wouldn't begrudge p.o.w to anything in the "Silly little things folder", but I've got to say I'm a bit surprised to see *this* one get it. It's a bit like when the flower picture of Leslie Hancock's won - it was almost like the elves recognising the photographer over the picture. I think Marsh Family Portrait, eggs, and the lillies are all better and this is pretty ordinary by comparison. But then I think that rain is wet, so who am I to judge ?

Sorry to rain on your parade, Bob, but I am tired of decorative floral photography. The vignette corners are pushed too far down - it is a distracting manipulation. It looks "photographic" and not enought like a "picture". (I hope you understand the distinction)

Floral still lifes, nudes, most landscapes, "sunsets" all run into the same wall of derivative photography. It is exceptionally difficult to do you "own" picture. Photography is an extremely difficult media to be "succesful" at for this reason. You ultimately need to photograph that which is at your core. That is work.

Your picture is nice - I just see it everytime I open a catalog for Linen N'Things, etc.

There is a difference between your picture and the truely great ones - They have more power and presence - "something-else" is going on. Hard to define, but fairly easy to see.

I hope this serves to give you some thought. Photographers who think are usually among the "best".

Thinkin' ain't easy.

(Now I've got a headache!)

Take Care.

Hello again!

 

I thought I'd take a moment to comment on a couple of things.

 

Should this picture tell a story? It could, but it isn't necessary. If you see something in it that you can relate to on an emotional level that's good! But if you only see this as an aesthetic statement (good or bad) I'm perfectly fine with that also.

 

Is this image too simple? That is of course for each of us to determine. My goal with this shot, if I were to put it into words for the first time, was simplicity. I wanted to take three daisies, probably the simplest of flowers, leave them completely on their own in the composition and create something interesting. Did I succeed? That's for each of us to decide, and brings me to my next point...

 

The ratings! A couple of people have commented on the ratings for this image. As I look over the ratings this shot has been given I see that they range from 3/3 to 7/7. And that's good! I'm seeing many different opinions on this image, all of them valid. This is a healthy thing, and in the end I'll come away with a pretty good idea of how this shot is judged overall.

 

Isidro - "What was that recipe again Mr. Hixon?" I'm not sure what you're asking. If you could be more specific I'll try to answer.

 

Marc - Still waiting! :-)

 

Anna - "The fact you sold your images,Bob, do not make them better than they truly are." That's very true! Never meant to imply anything along the lines you seem to be suggesting. I was only trying to let anyone who thinks they have seen similar images before know that they may have indeed seen my images before. I wouldn't want anyone to dismiss any of my images because they think they've seen something similar before, when the image they remember as similar was mine! Did that make any sense at all? :-)

 

James - Rain really is wet. :-)

 

Peter - "The vignette corners are pushed too far down - it is a distracting manipulation." I'm not sure I understand what your are saying about the "vignette corners", or about 'manipulation'

 

"It looks "photographic" and not enough like a "picture". (I hope you understand the distinction)" My goal WAS a photograph!

 

"There is a difference between your picture and the truly great ones -study them." I've made no claims to greatness, but with this statement you seem to be making quite an assumption! You and I have never had any contact before this very moment yet you have assessed my knowledge base and are advising me on my educational direction? Interesting! By the way I corrected your spelling when I quoted you.

 

Thanks again everyone!

I don't think so. At first glance, yes, of course, we have all seen "something like this". But where was it that we saw it, and what are the differences with what we saw. That is, to me, the key to the enjoyment of this image.

The other day, I went to a shopping center. They were selling lamps with flowers on the lamp-shade. Real flowers, dried, dead. Then, I'm from the south of France - French Riviera - and in this area, every village, and even the main cities, have many - and I really mean MANY ! - decorative objects on which you'll find dried flowers. There are also many shops selling frames with a few dried flowers on a textured paper, covered by a glass. Yet, these dried flowers, which have their own aesthetics and traditions where I come from, are not photographs. Now let's see... have we seen flowers photographed this way, before...?

Oh, yes, we have seen flowers on a textured paper background. Daisies ? Yes, of course, daisies too. So, it SEEMS to be really unoriginal, but wait... Have we ever seen 3 daisies aligned this way and apparently LYING DOWN ON - and NOT IN FRONT OF - their background ? The "shadow" (which isn't a shadow, as Bob explained) gives uf the impression that the daisies are ON something. Just like they are when we buy one of these frames with real - but dry - flowers in it... To this, one may want to add that this image gives a lot more importance to the green stams than we would normally expect.

Well, it's all that, which makes this picture apparently common perhaps, but absolutely original to me. About every photographer shows us petal close-ups, the whole flower - in a vase or in front of a blurred or non-existing background. Well, not Bob. To Bob, the body of the flower matters, the background matters, the real thing - i.e the "head" of the flower is just at the top of a "body" - is there, but NOT DIRECTLY the focus of our attention.

So, what ? So, to me, this picture is a post mortem examination of 3 living creatures. If you lok at the rest of the folder, you will see at least 2 other images that are titled "Family portrait" or such. That tells me that Bob has already regarded SOME of his flowers, cousciously, as if they were human. Now, to me, these flowers ARE truly human. And that's what made me smile when I saw this picture the first time. I feel they are human, yet treated like dried / dead creatures, apparently aligned on a table like they would be at the morgue. And yet, all this is soooooo sophisticated and made pretty, as if death didn't exist, and the picture is almost happy !

I know, I'm delirious. I'm sorry. Please, somebody, tell me I had too much vodka or that I somehow completely misinterpreted this image. Bob, perhaps...? :-) I doubt Bob imagined half of what I just wrote, but I'm curious to know... and eventhough the photographer didn't see what I saw in his picture, does it matter...? Fact is: this isn't a close-up, and these 3 daisies could also appear to someone else as a mother with her 2 kids, or what ever. The composition is extremely original to me, and just pretends to be a cliche. But I have yet to see one flower photo that will look even close to this.

A story ? Mmmm... Objectively, I'm not sure if this picture is MEANT to tell us anything, but we are all free to hear voices - right...? If not, what's art for ? Simple enjoyment of a pretty picture ? Well, we had very pretty POWs before. This one is imo very pretty too, but in a funny way, and resembles a portrait as much as it resembles daisies. I think the smartest word in this rather stange introduction by the Elves was to notice the central flower as "triumphant"... Something tells me that they may have had an anthropomorphic dream as well...

I'm not sure how to categorize this photo. It has a rough antique finish, no cropping, as if the artiste is determined to say that the whole speaks for itself.

 

Three daisies in sepia. Okay, it must be art. I'm not enthralled, and please don't get upset at my opinion, but there were certainly much better POW candidates.

 

Cheers,

Alan

Bob, it was the buzz thing, but never mind. I will however, take advantage of your inquiry and ask you about the process.

 

Since I caught your attention, how do you preserve the Polaroids once exposed? Dont they fade too quickly, and is there any way to prevent this? Also, in order to sell them, I assume that you copy them unto 4x5 film and make enlargements from themif so, what kind of film (conventional) do you use?

You mentioned that you have sold some of these photos, so my question iswhat is the largest print you have (or can) make from them, and how good is the resolution if enlarged to, say, 16x20? Or else, what is the biggest enlargement you can get from one of these Polaroid 4x5 sheets in what respective size film i.e. 35mm, 6x6cm, etc.? Did you do any toning on any of the pictures in the folder, either chemical or digital?......Thanks in advance!

 

 

Marc, had you recently not seen, or come from a background where dry flowers are all too common, would you still like this image as much? Reason being that you seem to classify or treat these flowers as being dead (dried) yet to me they look pretty fresh. Also, if they are not fresh, where or what is the triumph then?

The anthropomorphic analogy is uniquely yours (IMO); I see nothing that relates to humanity in them. Of course, clouds dont have faces either but I do see faces in them. Maybe its just my dry literal mind set, but then again I think of my self as being a dreamer and one who loves poetrywho knows?

 

The triumphant thing (elves and others) is a disparate assessment of the content in this photograph, and a gimmicky way to look at inanimate objects and forge a story around their appearance (IMO done to justify your opinion to yourself and others). Since the flower in the middle is smaller and less attractive compared to the other two, how is it superior? The truth is that it is much younger, more foolish and less experienced then the other two, it is also much lighter, and that is why its stem is not bent, ergo, no (actual) triumphunless the other two are perceived as cowering or truckling. But then again, these are only flowers and flowers dont compete with one another for status or dominance. (I cant believe I got involved in this line of commenting [assigning meaning to a flower picture] all for the sole purpose of saying why I cant see the forest because of all the flowers.

The humor thing escapes me.big time.

 

By the way, the picture is not bad at all; its just common I guess? The bottle picture on the other handlet me tell you!!!!!

Oh yeah, the buzz thing! That was a good time. :-)

 

You raise a good point because image transfers are delicate little things and will fade if not protected. First I mount them with pH neutral adhesive to acid free board. I then treat them with several coats of Krylon UV Resistant spray. I usually use the matte finish but at times I've used the gloss finish because it deepens the shadows a bit more. I then have them framed with UV resistant glass. Even then it's important to not hang them where they will be exposed to direct sunlight. After taking these steps a transfer should be pretty safe.

 

Aside from the images that have been publish as prints (at the same size as the original) the only images that I've personally sold are camera originals. I've never reproduced these in any standard photographic method at all, chemical or digital. I imagine they would enlarge just fine if you started with a good 4X5 chrome or drum scan from an original, but I've never really had any desire to try it so far. After I've finished shooting one of these things I usually have on average 6 or 7 transfers at most that are good enough to be framed and sold, and of these I keep one for myself. For this image I only had 3 originals worth framing! One original is with me, one I traded with a painter from Utah for one of his pieces, and the third was sold. And as they say, "that's all there is there ain't no more", and I like that aspect of it. The reason I mention in my tech details "As opposed to copying existing photographs..." is that many people create transfers from 35mm slides. This means they can keep reproducing the same image for as long as they like.

 

As far as any additional toning, I have on occasion accentuated the colors on my transfers a bit with pastels, but it's very rare that I do it, and very lightly when I do. They only transfer I've posted so far with any pastel treatment was "Sunflowers".

 

Also while I'm at this I'd like to apologize to Brent Slonecker who asked a question shortly after I posted this image that I neglected to respond to. I'm very sorry Brent, here's your answer.

 

I usually let the polaroid develop for about 15 seconds before pulling it apart. I then roll it onto the watercolor paper for about 10 second. This takes some practice because if you roll it with too much force you can smear it, or roll too lightly and the transfer will pull off when you separate it. Next I float the transfer in hot water for about 90 seconds and then gently pull the carrier sheet off. After pulling the transfer apart I submerge it in a pan containing 2 parts distilled water and 1 part vinegar. The reason for this is the chemistry used in Polaroids is very alkaline and the acid in the vinegar counteracts this. It also brightens and warms the colors. I usually let it soak for about a minute. Next I wash the transfer in running water for about 10 minutes to remove the vinegar and then hang it to dry.

 

I hope I answered everyone's questions. Thanks! :-)

For those interested in the polaroid transfer process, Kathleen Carr has a book describing how she does it. I've only flipped through it a few times (well, more than a few), but have yet to try any transfers myself. The way Bob described what he does sounds pretty much the same as how Carr describes it in her book, though I assume there is some variation in methods. Bob, have you seen the book?

Thanks for all the information on photography available in your portfolio and for keeping this technique alive. The daisies are beautifull in the tones and composition. I especially like the depth achieved by the shadows and the inner circle of light while the outside of the photo is vignetted. This is a very sophisticated photo.

 

Congratulations on your well deserved POW.

Thank you Margaret, your very kind. :-)

 

Brian, I've seen that book and there's a lot of good information in there. The basic principles of image transfer are the same for everyone, but no two people go about it exactly the same way. For instance, I float my transfers on hot water while other people submerge theirs. I used to submerge mine but discovered I get more consistent results floating them. Still others use hair dryers or even a hot slab or marble. I've even heard of people soaking transfers in vodka or spraying them with Lysol! Occasionally I've dissolved unflavored gelatin in hot water for the presoak the paper must go through, as opposed to the room temperature water that I normally use. Adding the gelatin increases the color saturation somewhat.

 

In short it's really a "fly by the seat of your pants" process. If you get the book you'll learn a lot, but be prepared to experiment and adjust those methods. Sometimes it's a very aggravating process, but usually a lot of fun. You should give it a try!

This is a very well crafted photo that I would have probably not spent much time studying had the POW editor not mentioned the thing about the story. Looking back at the image, the flowers were now abstract faces with personality and expression. It's likely that I would not have seen this without being pushed a bit.

 

I cannot look at this image now without seeing these "faces" and each time I begin almost involuntarily to construct a story that explains the expressions.

 

Example story 1:

The "face" on the right looks dejected. The middle and left "faces" seem to have a more optimistic outlook and are both looking in the opposite direction from the one on the right. Why are the two optimistic and one not? What are they seeing? Are the two optimistic "faces" those of new lovers and the dejected "face" the spurned one?

 

Example story 2:

The "faces" all have an expression of wide-eyed intensity and strength. What are they looking at? Are they intrepid explorers poised on ridge, collectively searching for a new direction?

 

From the comments about this image I'm guessing that Mr. Hixon did not necessarily intend the story or "faces" or anything other than a well crafted photo. No matter. Our intuition is often two steps ahead of our intellect and that seems the case here. That Mr. Hixon was not conscious of the effect at the time takes nothing away and makes his talent no less gifted.

 

This image and the questions posed by the POW editor may have altered the way I look at photos in the future. I may be more keen to look for the kind of personification I noticed, particularly in apparently ordinary pictures. I may also be more mindful of the potential for such effects in my own work.

I used to do polaroid transfers & it's not that easy to get "good" images, This one is very god, although I think I like the "Sunflowers" better. It's nice to see the POW choosing an alternative photographic process.

Stories? Why it is overflowing with a plethora of tales. Most

interesting is that they are all anatomical in nature. For example, it

seems that tall people are more self-confident than short people,

who suffer from depression and low self esteem, and that a penis is

happier than its friends, the testicles. My only criticism is that issues

such as the foregoing are rarely "silly little things." And, the

'sloppiness' stands in contrast to the propriety of composition of

the daises, proving a nuanced touch to emphasize the formality

evidenced by the daises relational interaction. Good work. Marc.

It's nice to see some interesting flower photos for a change, Bob. Thanks.

(Many irrelevant and argumentative messages have been removed from this thread - jms)

I like the simplicity of this and the 3-d effect.